Something is unjust when it is based on unjustice, or involves partiality, or deception. Unjustice is a breach of justice, i.e. the violation of other's rights.

I'm not a pacifist, at least one of those who believe that the resource to war is always illicit. If armed conflict is to be avoided, it is not always inevitable, as some of you have highlighted in your examples. War is sometimes necessary to restore international legality, a mandate of justice in case of gross human rights violations, and legitimate to defend a nation's most fundamental right -sovereignty, for example.

But, in order to be just, a war must be justified. No nation can undertake unilateral military action without breaching the international legality. Pursuant to the international treaties, military action must be backed by the international community, conducted within the rules of engagement and be respectful of the international conventions on both combattants and civilians.

A war that doesn't fulfil all those aspects is deemed an unjust war.

An unjust war can never be won, because even after the occupying power achieves a military victory, troops withdraw, the occupied nation recovers its independence and time elapses, the grounds for the declaration of war will remain as unjust as in the beginning. And unjustice only originates resentment and desire for revenge among a brutalised population.

There are too many aspects casting a shadow over the actual motives of the Iraq war, which are notorious in everybody's mind.

All wars breach someone or other's rights. life liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness, for example are all three violated during times of war/conflict. The victor of a territorial war pretty generally removes the defeated's pursuit of property. and, of course, there are always deaths in war-flict ( about the word, not the deaths ), whether they be collateral or intended. POWs most definitely have their liberty taken away.. But maybe a territorial war is not always 'just'. Certainly some are, though.

But, in order to be just, a war must be justified. No nation can undertake unilateral military action without breaching the international legality

Italicization mine.

what is this 'international legality'??? I have my doubts as to it's existence.

Just some thoughts. Good question, though. Especially given the times.

You have introduced some interesting concepts, such as 1. the boundaries of the notion of war, 2. its compatibility with justice, and 3. skepticism of international legality.

Again, I'm no naÃ¯f pacifist, as I'm aware that we don't live in an ideal world. I'll try to give an answer to your points.

1. I tend to see the conquest of the Americas (and Africa, Asia...) as a phaenomenon of colonisation rather than strict war, its main pattern being the creation of European settlements overseas. As an example, the logic of the South African Apartheid regime, though being extremely violent, was not a war strictu sensu, but rather a colonisation of African lands by European settlers and all "Law and Order" policies allowing for white racist domination.

2. Justice remains an essential factor in war, because fighting a legitimate war is vital in order to attain a moral victory. No state in the world has a Ministry of War or Aggression, but rather of Defence, because aggression is despicable, whereas defence is rightful. Even operating under an international mandate, the deployed troops must refrain from committing acts likely to be considered as a violation of international law.

3. International legality resulting from international treaties is today the strongest foundation for world peace, and every time a state violates it, it is posing a threat to international peace and security. In the case of Iraq, not only the war did not gather support from the UN nor the NATO, but it lacks justification four years after its outbreak. Meanwhile, several international treaties have been violated and -allegedly- indiscriminate executions of civilians have taken place.

ethopoeia wrote: As an example, the logic of the South African Apartheid regime, though being extremely violent, was not a war strictu sensu, but rather a colonisation of African lands by European settlers and all "Law and Order" policies allowing for white racist domination.

It started as a "Law and Order" policy alright but it did not start with the purpose of domination.
The Europeans settled in SA lived in relative peace with the "Bush people" well before the tribes like the Zulus and various Bantu tribes arrived on the scene.
After those tribes migration from the North and East the fighting started.
When SA became more industialized, the Zulus and Bantus etc tended to move to the cities for work and they stayed in the cities during the nights as well even if they did not have a dwelling there. This caused serious problems as can be well imagined. Having 50,000 people in a city of 10,000 is nothing to thumb your nose at.
That was the main cause for the policy to have proof of citizenship (of a particular city) if you wanted to stay in the city.
This policy turned into legalized racism which in turn fueled an even worse illegal racism.

ethopoeia wrote:1. I tend to see the conquest of the Americas (and Africa, Asia...) as a phaenomenon of colonisation rather than strict war, its main pattern being the creation of European settlements overseas

Perhaps in the big picture, but that included some pretty bloody wars too ... the Conquest of Mexico (which did not involve many European settlers, just European soldiers), the various Indian vs United States wars (the United States repeatedly broke the treaties it made with the Indians, so much so that many Americans, even those who saw Indians as inferior, felt that it was a mighty big blemish on their nation's honor), and there are probably some I don't know too much about. Arguably, the Spanish were helped by the various tribes which the Aztecs had oppressed, so *maybe* one could argue it was just, but from what I understand, the Spanish were as bad or worse than the Aztecs as masters.

Another example of an unjust war which was won, in my humble opinion, was the United States - Mexican war, which was strongly opposed by many Americans at the time (indeed, Thoreau refused to pay taxes for the war, which landed him in jail). An obscure congressman called Abraham Lincoln originally approved of the war, but when he learned more about what was going on, he claimed that Congress had been decieved by President Polk, and that the war was unjust. Basically, from what I know about the war, the United States wanted an excuse to grab land from Mexico, which is exactly what it did (1/3 of Mexico to be precise). It made land where slavery was illegal (Mexico) into land where slavery was legal and flourished (Southern United States). This actually caused the Civil War, but that's a digression from the topic at hand.

Considering colonisation as "war" may be a solid argument after all. Under this viewpoint, colonisation would be an example of a successful unjust war and, therefore, the statement that no unjust war can be won would be false. However, following this reasoning, one could consider racism or class struggle as "war", what I consider inconsistent with historical facts.

The truth is that colonisation had less to do with the methods of state-led war than with individual conquest by pioneers (preemption, adelantazgo), accompanied by some typical manifestations of ethnic cleansing (racism, deportations, treatment of natives as wild game). These methods are well documented, for example, in the Cherokee Trail of Tears and the Long Walk of the Navajo, or the reclusion of natives in controlled areas, be they called reservations, homelands, encomiendas or ghettos.

As far as I know, neither America nor Spain ever declared war on Indians.

On the other hand, you have a point as well that the notion of "justice" -as the very notion of war- is mutable. What is just today may be unjust tomorrow. However, in today's globalised world, it is increasingly difficult for democracies to wage war against the will of their people and global public opinion, especially without an apparent justification, because it inevitably leads to political isolation.

In the case of Iraq, it is difficult to adventure the outcome of the war, but you don't need to be an expert to see that, after leaving a devastated country drown in blood, all America can do is lose its credit as a peacekeeping power.

ethopoeia I am one of those who firmly believe that the was on Iraq was unjust.

However,
a) Perhaps you should modify the definition of "unjust" you gave before because Romans i.e. had to right to really wage war on Greece and they really trully won that one. And this was a war by all definitions. They wipped our behinds really badly. And it wasn't moral even then. That's why they (and us in the past) always looked for an excuse.

b) Are we talking in general? Are we discussin if any unjust (by any definition) war can be won or are we talking specifically about the war on Iraq?

Because, should the US i.e. decided to attack -unjustly- i.e. Greece do you really think that they wouldn't win? Yes they would. We's surrender. That's the end of the official war (since we are talking about declarations we should also talk about surrender). The guerilla fighting afterwards is another issue, not part of the officially declared war.

The U.S.-Mexican war was an officially declared war, and had an equally official peace treaty (albeit one rammed down Mexico's throat). And it was considered unjust by people from that time - that's why I cited Thoreau and Lincoln, though Lincoln is probably the better representative. Lincoln's speech on the Mexican war is actually a good source of info if you want to know more details. Texas was (mostly) under U.S. control at the time, and the Mexican territory captured in the war had few Anglo-American settlers. Some people cite the U.S.-Mexican war as the start of United States imperialism (actually, I think it started before then, but that's off topic).

I actually know quite a bit about the U.S.-Mexican war because I participated in not one, but two mock-impeachment trials of President Polk, who was President during the Mexican war, and I sat in for part of a third trial.

Now, on the Iraq war, I don't have a strong position, largely because I am skeptical about all information I see/hear about the war. I'm not there, ergo I don't know. However, based on what I have seen/heard, it seems that there is a civil war breaking out, not the U.S. oppressing the locals (but as I said, I'm not there, so I don't know). If the U.S. can do something to prevent the civil war which it started, then I think it is our responsibility. If not, we should stop messing things up. That said, I don't think we should have gone there without U.N. cooperation, and I don't think Bush is a good enough commander in chief to pull it off. If those conditions were different, I don't know how I would feel about the Iraq war.

I support edonnelly's view that we can't judge past actions with modern moral standards.

About the US-Mexican war, even if there was opposition in the United States at the time, I tend to think that that war belonged to the territorial wars profusely fought by the new American republics in the 19th century (Chaco War, Pacific War, etc.). You will hardly find a country which didn't wage war at the time against its neighbours in order to seize their resources (gold, cupper, phosphates, oil, etc.)

In the case of the current war, there exist worrying signs that America (the world's largest oil consumer) may be waging a war for resources in Iraq (the world's 2nd largest oil producer), oil being the strategic resource #1. The fact that the current President is an oil tycoon, and second of an oil tycoon Presidential dynasty, confirms the oil-dependency of the American economy, as well as Arab outrage that the actual object of war could well be the Iraqi oil reserves.

Acting unilaterally, America finds itself now at a turning point: it can neither win the war, nor abandon the country. Meanwhile, a war scheduled 2 months has spanned over 4 years, and the prospects of leaving a pacificated country grow inversely proportionate to the accounts of bloodshed in the media. The only solution I see would be the deployment of an international peacekeeping force ("blue helmets") after the American exit the country.

ethopoeia wrote:In the case of the current war, there exist worrying signs that America (the world's largest oil consumer) is waging a war for resources in Iraq (the world's 2nd largest oil producer), oil being the strategic resource #1.

This is an argument I hear again and again, but it doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) there is no scenario where the US is going to just take the oil from Iraq and (2) since we're going to pay for the oil anyway, we could have just as easily bought it from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If it were just about the US needing oil, and nothing else, there would never have been a war. Plenty of other countries (France, Russia, etc.) proved that you easily give Hussein what he wants (money) and get what you want (oil).

I do think oil is the major contributing factor, though. Not because the US wants that oil, but because the oil resources give whatever government that controls that land almost unlimited resources. A dangerous government with no resources is not much of a threat, but one with near infinite cash flow is a threat to the whole world. Even if the US were completely oil-independent, the rest of the world's oil needs would have provided more than enough money to make Iraq a world threat and would have necessitated the war.

ethopoeia wrote:The fact that the current President is an oil tycoon, and second of an oil tycoon Presidential dynasty, confirms the oil-dependency of the American economy, as well as Arab outrage that the object of war was actually the Iraqi oil reserves.

Well, I don't think America would be any less oil-dependent if the Bush family had made its fortune in something other than oil. What it really confirms is that you can make a heck of a lot of money in oil, and it takes a heck of a lot of money to win an election around here.

edonnelly wrote:This is an argument I hear again and again, but it doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) there is no scenario where the US is going to just take the oil from Iraq and (2) since we're going to pay for the oil anyway, we could have just as easily bought it from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If it were just about the US needing oil, and nothing else, there would never have been a war. Plenty of other countries (France, Russia, etc.) proved that you easily give Hussein what he wants (money) and get what you want (oil).

The US will obviously will never "just" take oil from Iraq, that would be stupid, but it "will" have direct control of the oil through American contractors, and, hence, a direct control on the oil market. This could not have been done with Saddam Hussein in power. Secondly, the war, as you point out, was not "just" about the US needing oil, it was also about establishing American military power and "democratizing" the Middle East (a neoconservative agenda).

I do think oil is the major contributing factor, though. Not because the US wants that oil, but because the oil resources give whatever government that controls that land almost unlimited resources. A dangerous government with no resources is not much of a threat, but one with near infinite cash flow is a threat to the whole world. Even if the US were completely oil-independent, the rest of the world's oil needs would have provided more than enough money to make Iraq a world threat and would have necessitated the war.

Well c'mon now, Iraq was not that powerful. And besides, attacking a sovereign country just because they can manipulate their own natural resources is most certainly unjustified.

ethopoeia wrote:In the case of the current war, there exist worrying signs that America (the world's largest oil consumer) is waging a war for resources in Iraq (the world's 2nd largest oil producer), oil being the strategic resource #1.

This is an argument I hear again and again, but it doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) there is no scenario where the US is going to just take the oil from Iraq and (2) since we're going to pay for the oil anyway, we could have just as easily bought it from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Certainly not in US dollars. In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. Iraq's oil for food account at the UN was also in euros, and Iraq later converted all its reserve fund to euros.

Iraq was invaded in 2002.

Iran has also recently abandoned the dollar payment for oil and switched to the euro.

Iran faces a serious danger.

So I bet 100 â‚¬ with you guys that before the end of the year old Fritz will be seizing the Golan Heights

Aha! So France for instance was blinded to the danger Saddam posed to humanity and traded with him? All the countries that were against the war where just too stupid to see that he had to be stripped of his resources?

Since I really don't remember, was that one of the reasons given for the attack on Iraq? (he is dangerous so we should strip him of resources)

Was overthrowing him an afterthought? I mean after being stripped of his resources he didn't pose a threat right? I can't see people saying "reasons to go to war: a) overthrow Saddam because he's a tyrant b) see that he has no resources after we are done overthrowing him.

OR

is it a case of attacking any goverment we don't like and has resources? Like S. Arabia whose goverment is not democratic either? Theoretically speaking it could become a threat to the whole world. Why didn't the US attack USSR? Lots of resources and a genuine world threat according to some (I do know the reason but that's one of the points isn't it?). China can be viewed the same way too can't it?

IreneY wrote:Aha! So France for instance was blinded to the danger Saddam posed to humanity and traded with him? All the countries that were against the war where just too stupid to see that he had to be stripped of his resources?

The whole purpose of the UN's Oil-for-Food program was to strip him of his financial resources (without starving his own people). Of course that was underminded by France (and Russia) who were not blinded to the danger, they just covertly chose to ignore it for their own financial gain.

IreneY wrote: Was overthrowing him an afterthought? I mean after being stripped of his resources he didn't pose a threat right? I can't see people saying "reasons to go to war: a) overthrow Saddam because he's a tyrant b) see that he has no resources after we are done overthrowing him.

Stripping him of his resources is one and the same thing as overthrowing him.You cannot take away his resources but leave him in power.

IreneY wrote:OR

is it a case of attacking any goverment we don't like and has resources? Like S. Arabia whose goverment is not democratic either? Theoretically speaking it could become a threat to the whole world. Why didn't the US attack USSR? Lots of resources and a genuine world threat according to some (I do know the reason but that's one of the points isn't it?). China can be viewed the same way too can't it?

Saudi Arabia does not give indications of the cruel oppression and terrorism that Saddam did. Neither the USSR not China were by any means rich countries. North Korea poses more of a threat.
What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda. In my estimation that is the only argument that can be used to support the claim that the US is only looking out for its own financial welbeing.

Bert wrote:What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda

Well, Western Sahara was invaded by Morocco 31 years ago and the issue remains unresolved.
Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and 5 months later it was back to business as usual.

The point with the euro and the dollar is that, since both are valued against oil, the standard currency used for oil payments matters. When the US took over Iraq the second thing it did (first it seized all oil wells) was to return oil sales from the euro to the dollar.

The economic rationale is that, while all other countries must purchase foreign currency to buy their oil supplies, the only thing the US needs to do is print more banknotes.

So even if the greenback has devaluated 43% against the euro since 2000 and the IMF forecasts a bigger fall by 15-35%, the US will still be able to buy the same amount of oil by printing more banknotes.

Bert wrote:Stripping him of his resources is one and the same thing as overthrowing him.You cannot take away his resources but leave him in power.

a) that why I put the "OR"b) stripping someone from his resources is a way of making one weeker. You take the fangs out of him so to speak. Overthrowing someone is a bit more drastic.

IreneY wrote:

Saudi Arabia does not give indications of the cruel oppression and terrorism that Saddam did. Neither the USSR not China were by any means rich countries. North Korea poses more of a threat.What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda. In my estimation that is the only argument that can be used to support the claim that the US is only looking out for its own financial welbeing.

You mean internal terrorism for Saddam I suppose since he had nothing to do with Al-Qida. USSR and China didn't(don't) suppress populations sth cruel? Didn't (don't) they have as much potential harming power as Iraq? Why?

Yesterday President George W. Bush aknowledged in a press conference that the U.S. "is not winning in Iraq". Two weeks ago, the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, when asked if the U.S. was winning the Iraq war answered "no sir".

Furthermore, The Lancet (UK) published recently an Iraqi casualty study amounting to over 650,000 dead since 2003.

European media cover that the alleged reasons to go to war on Iraq (Iraq's WMD, Hussein's ties to Bin Laden, Iraqi participation in 9/11) were nothing but a bunch of lies.

Prestigious European media talk overtly about Global War on Oil led by the U.S. in the Middle East.

This makes a lot of sense, since it's obvious that Iraq is the world's 2nd largest crude producer.

Not to mention how the Bush family greased their way to the White House.

Well, I'm no Cuban commie, but in Europeanese you call that "imperialism"

Well...these answers (with a couple notable exceptions) are all so...in depth, and most have nothing to do with anything at all. Fluffy bunny bullcrap. Least of all with a straight answer. Why does everything have to be so complex? Latin is complicated...why should anything else be?

How about this. A simple answer. Novelty of novelties!

No. The US can't win. Why? Because the US has no clue what they are doing or why. And even if they do eventually come up with a reason, it won't matter because the "leaders" of my fine country are all inept morons who aren't sure how they got there or what they'll do now that they're there.

But, what does it matter anyways? Nothing we say will bring my cousins and uncles I've got over there back here. I've lost one already. So, we can sit here and discuss the pros and cons of it, or we can just make good use of one well-placed nuclear device. We've got plenty of THOSE. (Well, less now that we're selling them wholesale to our enemies.) But--while we're in front of our wonderfully globally connecting technological marvels...my advice to the SOLDIERS (who probably don't have time to ponder the quandries of the justice or injustice of war and signed up for gods-know-why) is kill 'em all, let the gods sort them out.

Biased, prejudiced and delightfully lacking in shades of gray or common human decency. Mmm...delectable. I do love being primitive and tribal. Call me Doric. Call me whatever, I don't really care. I just thought I'd put something a little less "politically correct" and with a serious lack of consideration towards globalized humanitarianism efforts. In a day and age of weak belly-aching and decay of tradition, I'm the oddity. Heh. Bet you guys aren't used to this, are you?

Hehehe. Good one. International Court. Of course, I don't see any of /them/ in the trenches.

Plus, I don't think you have to be a logician to say that war is stupid. Really stupid. Who cares if it is sometimes necessary, as some say? That doesn't make it any less stupid. Yay! Fight for liberty, country, and whatnot. It's still stupid. I love my country, and I'm proud of my country (though my government is the laughing stock of the world), and I would gladly die for her. But my death would still be stupid. Do I need to say it' stupid some more?